Why does everyone think Buddhists are Atheists?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Having been initiated into Dzogchen meditation and being a Christian also, I fail to see HOW Buddhists are atheists!

The buddhist Pali Nikayas clearly state that Nibbana is "Unborn, Uncreated, Clear, Luminous without Stain." Does that sound like a Metaphysical reality?
It is because it's UNcreated and "No, it's not the Brain!" Hmmm.....

Not convinced? Let's check out some other stuff shall we?:
Buddhists believe in Divyachakku/Dibbachakku (sorry for the spelling): Divine Eye (Research it yourselves) Pun... to find out what it is.
Buddhists believe in Thought reading
Buddhists believe in ESP
Buddhists believe in Past Lives

Not only that, but recent scholarship is saying that most of "Buddhism" today is NOT what Gautama Siddhartha taught!
Check out Julius Evola, Koomaraswamy, etc.

www.attan.com will open your minds because I hear NO authentic buddhist voice speaking other than mine in this forum. It is evident by what is posted.

hellas1-Lover of the Lord Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha! How? PM me.

[Wibbler]

Buddha is a god? News to me. To be a Theistic religion, there must be a universal belief of some form of god within that religion. I didn't know Buddhists had that.

[Thanatos]

Really? I don't think they're Atheists.

[Chaigidel]

those that claim it only claim it to suit personal desires which they place upon buddhism; nirvana could be considered a god-state-- to seek it at the center of your faith seems theistic.

[Wibbler]

those that claim it only claim it to suit personal desires which they place upon buddhism; nirvana could be considered a god-state-- to seek it at the center of your faith seems theistic.

the·ism
n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


According to that definition, some form of heaven in a religion doesn't make it theism.

[hellas1]

@Wibbler,

Check out www.attan.com and if that guy doesn't make a valid point.

BTW, I'm not validating EVERYTHING that guy has to state.

Recent scholarship however including an interesting book by David Loy called "Nonduality", states that most of the contents in the Pali Buddhist Nikayas are redactions off of earlier statements/positions and do NOT reflect original buddhist Dharma.

Ex. In Theravada Buddhism, one must "attain" enlightenment by the noble 8 fold path. In Dzogchen, there is no "attaining" because enlightenment is where the mindstream, NOTE: mindstream not Spirit, is naturally!

Brahman, not Brahma, is not mentioned in the buddhist Nikayas. It does go without saying however that Brahman is both a personal and Impersonal god!
The buddha was a yogi before being the "buddha" which means that he probably knew about Brahman and Kundalini, various Asanas and so forth.
Again, modern scholarship buddhist or not stresses these facts. Do research.

Not to mention the fact that at the 2nd or 3rd buddhist council over 18 different buddhist schools, each claiming to be correct, debated what was correct Buddhadharma!
hellas1

[Wibbler]

I'm by no means educated on Buddhism and its different schools, but what you've said so far is unclear to me. How exactly does Buddhism preach the existence of god? Some form of example of a text that does so would be greatly appreciated.

[Kiljaden]

Because most Buddhists are atheist. Atheism means you do not have a belief in God(s). Atheism says absolutely NOTHING about ANYTHING except God(s). You can be an atheist and believe in supernatural things, mysticism, magic, whatever - though it usually doesn't happen that way because Atheism itself is a generally a stance of skepticism and rationality. Though there are many religions and belief systems that happen to be atheist.

I happen to know an atheist who is also a creationist. He actually believes that life is a simulation of some sort (like the Matrix). He actively thinks that human life on Earth is some sort of "vacation" that's experienced in a very short time by our real minds somewhere else.

[Djûn]

From my experience in the religion of Buddhism, I have found that many Buddhists do not deny the existence of God or gods, they merely recognise that these beings are not a way towards enlightenment. For example, many could say that the Abrahamic God does indeed exist, only that he has a very extended lifespan and that the Kingdom of Heaven which he promises the faithful is not a true way to happiness, merely a higher form of living.

It is written on many occasions that the Buddha Gotama talked to the various Devas (spirits) and Brahmas (gods). Indeed, as he sat under the Bodhi tree after attaining enlightenment, the Buddha Gotama thought to himself that no other being would be able to understand the complex nature which is Nibbana. It was in fact a Brahma who came to convince the Buddha Gotama that there are many people who are very close to the state of Nibbana, and such it is worth telling them of the Path to Enlightenment.

Unfortunately I can quote little scripture off the cuff, I have found a rather lengthy extract from the Tittha Sutta AN 3.61, I have cropped it to the best of my abilities:

"There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation...

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation...When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort..."

To summarise, he criticises those who rely on creator gods simply due to the fact that if this is the case, any man who creates negative karma may ultimately blame it all on the fact that he was created by this god. This leads to idleness as there is no motive to better oneself, knowing that you are blameless.

If you so request I will undertake a more thorough search

[Kiljaden]

From my experience in the religion of Buddhism, I have found that many Buddhists do not deny the existence of God or gods, they merely recognise that these beings are not a way towards enlightenment. For example, many could say that the Abrahamic God does indeed exist...

Firstly, they do not explicitly affirm the existence of God(s).

Secondly, the question isn't whether they DENY the existence of God(s), the question is whether they postively assert that God(s) exist, which they don't. Therefore they "lack" a belief in God(s). Therefore, they are atheist.

[Djûn]

Firstly, they do not explicitly affirm the existence of God(s).

Erm... the Samyutta Nikaya 6.1 talks of the request of the Brahma Sahampati to the Gotama Buddha to teach the Path to Enlightenment to the world. It was the Brahma Sahampati who explained the idea of some people being just below the surface of understanding, comparing them to lotuses in a pond.

If this doesn't show that the Gotama Buddha affirmed the existence of gods, then I fail to see what would.

Link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....001.than.html

[hellas1]

@Dune42,

Recent scholarship is stating that the buddhist approach is "Via Negativa" while Sankaracharya's viewpoint is "Via Positiva".

Brahma IS mentioned in the Pali texts but not Brahman, both a personal and impersonal God Who/Which superceded anything and everything.

The traditional Theravadin approach that enlightenment is not now existent in people is false.
The Dzogchen statement, using the Theravadin Nikayas:
Quoting David Loy in his book "Nonduality: a study in comparative philosophy"

""Yet there are few passages in the Pali Canon that contradict the usual Theravadin interpretation. In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima Nikaya) the Buddha says: "Do not think that (nirvana) is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without a distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbatopabham); it is untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power." The passage reappears in the Kevaddha Sutra (Digha Nikaya I. 213) with an addition: "here it is that conditioned consciousness ceases to be." This distinction between conditioned consciousness and an infinite consciousness, shining everywhere, is inconsistent with the usual view in early Buddhism that consciousness is a result of conditions and does not arise without these conditions.""

How's that sir!

@Irishman,

Read the above.

The problem with your stance, friend, is that you don't like to go back to original buddhist texts or at least to what buddhist scholars or monks of various lineages have to say.

Quote me something useful. Stop giving me your bizarre "buddhist" stances.

I've quoted Dzogchen because I happen to love it! It does work.

I've never claimed to be a scholar or a specialist, but I have researched various buddhist traditions probably more than you have.
Ex. Pure Land, Ch'an, Zen, the Tibetan Schools, Dzogchen, Pugdala-ism, Bon, Theravada, Some Rinzai, Rimey movement within Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana. Not to mention owning three Nikayas from Wisdom Publications: Samyutta, Digha and Majjhima and soon to get the Anguttara Nikaya.

I, incidentally, HAVE wanted to be discipled as a lay person under a Theravadan Achan or a Tibetan geshe but life doesn't work that easily when you make certain decisions. I have also done comparative religious studies as well for a number of years now, actually going to "religious services" of different faiths.
I would like to integrate what I've learned from my studies into my (potential) Master's degree program in Clinical or Cognitive Psychology.

If you want to discuss this futher, we can. I only ask that you examine what evidence I've given SO FAR:
-David Loy's book "Nonduality"
-www.attan.com Disclaimer: I don't believe everything this guy is pushing!
-Koomaraswamy
-Julius Evola
-Namkhai Norbu
-John Myrdhin Reynolds

Come back AFTER you've checked this stuff out. Actually read it sir.
Don't post me two seconds after reading this.

Thank you kindly,
hellas1

[Dayman]

Because some forms don't have belief in an implicit deity, thusly some forms are atheistic.

[Thanatos]

Just because Buddhism doesn't happen to mention anything about an overarching deity, that automatically implies atheism?

[gaius valerius]

Never heard anyone say that...

Because some forms don't have belief in an implicit deity, thusly some forms are atheistic.

Well but that's just silly. I mean it doesn't take you to be a genius to realise that the belief in a deity alone can make something religious?

[Dr. Croccer]

Buddhism is more philosophy and a way of life than an actual religion/non-theism. Same with Confucianism and Taoism as well. Buddha is revered in a way however and they have the Devas, godlike creatures but Buddhism itself doesn't preach worship. However, considering it Atheism is silly.

In short, they recognise gods, saints and miracles but don't worship them. It's silly to say it's Atheism, Christianity says that the devil exists but you shouldn't worship him, does that mean it's Atheism?

[Serious Spamurai]

Most Buddhists in the west are. In Places like Bhutan, Tibet, China, Southeast Asia and India they aren't usually atheistic.

[IndianPrince]

Buddhism is not atheistic ... it is non-theistic.

Prince

[Valentin the II]

True Buddhists are agnostics.
There is absolutley nothing in the teachings of Buddha concerning god or the supernatural.
Buddhists dont deny the existance of god, but they neither worship nor discus him.
And no, Buddha is not a god, hes just a prophet.

Anything else?

[Pivra]

Buddhism is not atheistic ... it is non-theistic.

Prince

YES lol, Theravada Buddhism in my country they pretty much use our Hindu pantheon but its a very nice hybrid. Since before Ashoka we worshipped Brahma and Indra and Vishnu etc etc now that the majority of the country is now Buddhists we still can worship Hindu Gods, Buddha did not say anything about denying divinity.

ps. Buddhism in its purest form would be too cruel in reality for most people.